Nice work & congrats but luk was doomed from the start so not much of a win.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Good. Then I'm going with "God exist as much as Love exist"You can see the effect of love in the people.You can see the effect of God in the people.You can feel love as much as You can feel God.When you believe in love your life is better. Same thing with God.

Unfortunately all the proof that I have for the existence of love are testimony from people. Same thing with God.

I agree with you that God is not an actual, physical entity. But he exist and that is what was asked to demonstrate here.

"Next, you have never established a link between a concept and an emotion nor an emotion and a god." Really?

"In the debate, you agave no evidence of anything. You did not respond to OAA. You merely questioned. " which one of his question was without answer?

<snip>That's why I was really surprised and gave the victory to One Above All.

I take it this is supposed to read "I was really surprised when you (Graybeard) gave the victory to One Above All.".I explained why an emotion is not a god, as per our definition of the latter term. You did not debunk it. In fact, you avoided it. Now you're surprised you lost?

The fact that we can conceive of something in no way means that it existed before anyone thought of it.

Anne McCaffrey conceived of the dragons of Pern. Does that mean they actually exist somewhere in the universe, as opposed to simply the concept of them that exists within the pages of her books and the imaginations of those who read them? Unless you can come up with something to demonstrate that they actually exist, there is no reason at all to conclude that they do. Which doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.

Good. Then I'm going with "God exist as much as Love exist"You can see the effect of love in the people.You can see the effect of God in the people.You can feel love as much as You can feel God.When you believe in love your life is better. Same thing with God.

Unfortunately all the proof that I have for the existence of love are testimony from people.

You agree that it is not proof or even reliable evidence.

Quote

I agree with you that God is not an actual, physical entity. But he exist and that is what was asked to demonstrate here.

No. Your job, as I said, was to establish the existence of a god. Existing in someone’s mind does not give anything a real existence: that thing remains abstract - a concept. If this were not the case, we would have to say "Anything I can imagine exists.", which is ridiculous.

If you had said, in the post that caused the debate, "The God I believe in exists in my mind." nobody would have argued. However, you chose not to do that, and you lost the debate. There is no use trying to play with words.

Napoleon Bonaparte would have told you that fighting old battles is pointless: instead, you must learn from them and the mistakes you made.

Please, no more posts in this thread. I have given all my reasons for my decision.

I don't care what other thread told me already. It never was refuted in this debate.When you say "it was wrong ab intio." or "Your example is flawed." or "You have been told many times " or "No. Your job, as I said, was to establish the existence of a god. Existing in someone’s mind does not give anything a real existence: that thing remains abstract - a concept. If this were not the case, we would have to say "Anything I can imagine exists.", which is ridiculous." You make this debate your own! You have your opinion, I respect that and we can debate them if you want. We have our opinion and I will ask you to respect them. Judge it (the discussion) with impartiality for what it is. Not based on your opinion.You based your first decision on a mistake then the second on things that weren't written or agreed in the discussion.

Please explain to us what is wrong with the proof I gave in the discussion."SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist"

Please explain to us what is wrong with the proof I gave in the discussion."SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist"

You never showed that God was an emotion: you claimed that. In fact you claimed that God was a cause of emotions. You also claimed that ""love" was an emotion" (which we accept as a semantic interpretation) However, "love" is not the cause of "love": "love" should have a cause that exists.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Please explain to us what is wrong with the proof I gave in the discussion."SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist"

You never showed that God was an emotion: you claimed that. In fact you claimed that God was a cause of emotions. You also claimed that ""love" was an emotion" (which we accept as a semantic interpretation) However, "love" is not the cause of "love": "love" should have a cause that exists.

I know I proposed that (instead of claim) and that proposition has not been refuted. Again ""WE" accept as semantic" instead of looking at the debate, the facts, as a judge would do, you include your opinion in the debate.Please, use the arguments of the debate. Not your own.It is possible that One above all made a mistake in the debate by not arguing with me that God is not an emotion.This phrase alone :

I don't need to demonstrate that God is omnipotent omniscient and infinite to win this debate. I just need to demonstrate that he Exist.

And you've failed. Amazing, isn't it?

Should mean that OAA admits that "I don't need to demonstrate that God is omnipotent omniscient and infinite to win this debate. I just need to demonstrate that he Exist." and that I did not do it.So at that point I asked for a vote.That phrase (reply #108):

Lukvance, you seem to be completely and utterly unwillingly[1] engaging in quote mining. That's alright.[2] I've taken the liberty of quoting the portion of my post that's relevant to why I said that you had failed, as well as the part where I said you failed, so that users can get a better view on what really happened. I'm sure this won't happen again, as you are an honest theist.[3]

"God is everything" is just a saying. Nothing to stop your counter argument there. I told you SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist. (if only partially)Q.E.D.(from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum)or CQFD (Ce Qu'il Fallait Démontrer) in french.

One shouldn't use the most holy of languages (hint: it's not French) if one doesn't respect it.Let me tell you why you're wrong.What was that definition of "perfect" we both agreed to after you said that, if a god existed, he would be perfect? That's right: omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. A concept is none of these three things. It's not even partially any of those things. A concept can't turn a black hole inside out. A concept doesn't know if the edge of the Universe is made out of cardboard. A concept doesn't care for the suffering of others. Therefore, a god, as we both defined it, does not exist.Quod erat demonstrandum.

I totally agree with you. Good thing that it wasn't what I was supposed to debate there. You seem to want to change the subject too. The subject is very simple "does God exist" I don't have to prove that something is independent to prove it's existence. I never had to and never will I have to.

By definition, existence means to have actual being or to be real. In order for this to be the case, it must exist outside and be independent of a person's mind, otherwise it cannot have actual being/be real.

For example, Darth Vader does not actually exist. Even though there are people who dress up as Darth Vader, who take on his role for movies and the like, he is not an actual person. He is dependent on people to keep him in their imaginations. If every human being who had ever seen or heard of Darth Vader were struck with targeted amnesia, then he would vanish without a trace.

Whereas George Washington actually existed. There are historical records of him, things he did in the world. If every human being who had ever heard of him were struck with targeted amnesia, he would still have existed, and the things he did would still have happened.

Quote from: Lukvance

Ps: I am not saying they were wrong in their judgement. I'm saying that like you they made a mistake on the subject of the debate. They both thought the debate was "Does god exist independently?" and argue from that point when I was arguing from another point, closer to the subject.

No, you just had a different idea of what the subject of the debate was than they did (when you act like every person who had a different idea than you was mistaken, that comes across as arrogance). The 'mistake', if mistake it was, was that none of you made sure to be on the same page before you began it. So instead of blaming them for making a mistake, take it as a lesson to be learned from.

Quote from: Lukvance

I would have judge the same thing if I was them. I would have also agree to change my verdict upon realizing the assumption I made on the subject. Even if it was only to retract it and maybe even suggest the two debaters to create a new debate this time making sure they are debating the same thing.But, that's me.

So why didn't you suggest that? The way you came across (and to a degree, are still coming across) is that you were correct and everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong.

That's because people are still telling me that I lost. They being unreasonable tend to push to not be reasonable either.Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Love exist? If not, why aren't you lying when you say that you love someone? I mean if you say that you love someone and you know that love does not exist then you will be telling a lie right?In the same manner. God exist. I agree with you, not like "George Washington". Saying that God does not exist would be telling a lie.

You, of all people, have no business whatsoever complaining about other people being unreasonable, Lukvance. Not when you've driven someone like me - arguably one of the most reasonable people on the forum - to the point where I simply don't care how people treat you! Do you have the first idea - the slightest clue - of just how furious I am with the way you act towards me and others? You're pedantic, asinine, extremely annoying, totally convinced that you're right, and that's just scratching the surface. Frankly, if it were up to me, you'd be banned outright for the way you've been acting towards other people.

And the worst part is that, as far as you're concerned, it's all justified as long as you don't lose an argument. Winning (and 'proving' that your beliefs are right) is all that matters to you. You don't care how upset other people get as long as you can say at the end that you 'won'. Even though, most often, this is how you look to others:

Yes, that's you. Lukvance, the Black Knight. If this were actually a physical fight, you'd be cut to worse shreds than the actual Black Knight was. But since it's just words, you can ignore and dismiss what your opponent says and keep spouting the same inane arguments which they've countered a dozen times.

---

I do not believe that love is an entity that can act on its own; it is an emotion that people act on. And that's why your comparison is false. If your god is the same as an emotion, then it exists (inside your head), but is no more a person than love is. It cannot do anything on its own; all it can do is provoke you to act in some way.

That's why you lost the debate, because you were so focused on proving that your god was as real as an emotion that you didn't think through the repercussions of making such an analogy. If you want to prove that your god is an actual entity that can act on its own, you must prove that it is more real than an emotion, because emotions are simply names we've given to hormones in our bodies that provoke certain responses.

That's why OAA is withdrawing from the debate. Because by 'proving' that your god is equivalent to an emotion, you've done his work for him. You had to show that your god was an entity that could act on its own in the real world in order to actually win the debate. By arguing that your god was equivalent to an emotion, you played right into his hands. He doesn't have to prove that your god is less real than an emotion in order to come out ahead.